Knocking out T34s in 1941

[A.E.B]

Sorry in advance.

I know that this issue has been brought up on a number of occasions, but newbies like me don't necessarily have the time to check through 240+ pages of threads.

It is obvious that the question "how come I can KO T34s in 1941 so easily....I thought that they were invulnerable..." will just keep occurring every time a suitable thread is started. I have just finished looking through all my books on the Eastern Front with the aim of designing a couple of senarios. This is my observations on this matter.

The T34 was not invulnerable because:

* Due to a lack of spare parts and fuel, few were battle ready at the start of Barbarossa.

* The crews were very poorly trained.

* The early T34s had design faults: a shot trap around the mantle, a vulnerable plate covering the exhaust system and the cast turret tended to deflect rounds downwards into the hull deck.

* Early T34s were badly made. Even later T34s had gaps in the welding, plates that weren't correctly fitted, poorly rolled and hardened armour, etc.

* Many of the early T34s had a short (L28?) 76mm gun. These T34s were the HQ tanks of companies of BTs or T26s. This short gun was ineffective at tank killing.

* Early T34s had a two man turret that overworked the commander. This, coupled with a large turret hatch, greatly reduced the situational awareness of the commander.

* Most T34s in 1941 lacked radios and couldn't coordinate their actions with other tanks or infantry easily.

* Russian tanks in July 1941 were scattered in penny packets as infantry support, and were usually outnumbered by the Germans at the point of attack.

* The T34s superior maneuverability in mud and snow wasn't as noticable in the summer of 1941.

* Due to rapid German advances and the interdiction by aircraft that cut Russian supply lines, many T34s were lost due to lack of fuel and ammunition.

For the above reasons the Germans were initially slow to notice the presence of T34s, KV Is and KV IIs except for a few well reported incidents. Many Germans probably couldn't tell the difference between a T28, a T34, a T35 or a KV in June/July 1941 anyway.

How the Germans killed T34s with the L60 37mm or the L40 50mm or L24 75mm gun is interesting. I have a number of pictures of KOed T34s taken in 1941. None of these T34s showed the catastrophic damage (turrets blown off for instant) that is seen in T34s killed by later German high velocity guns. Most of the KOed T34s in the pictures had their turrets facing towards the rear of the tank. This suggests to me that the T34s were out maneuvered by the Germans on the battlefield. Another picture shows a T34 disabled by a large bomb crater, and another shows two T34s that have driven at speed into a swamp. Again the turrets face rearward, and it appears that the tanks bogged and were then abandoned.

Given the lack of burning or other catastrophic damage shown in the photos, I theorise that most T34s were abandoned by their crews after sustaining lesser damage.

The Germans began to notice the T34 once the weather, supply problems and attrition robbed them of the initative. It is then that the T34 running across the snow towards immobilised Germans is frequently reported. This was coupled with the Siberian units arriving on the central front with (I believe) a good number of T34s and KVs. Then the Germans took notice!

Ultimately it was the quantity of T34s produced, not the quality of each tank that determined the armour war on the eastern front. The T34 was rough and ready, which was perfect for the war in the East.

This post isn't meant to be a definitive answer on this issue. War is too random to summarise down to a few bullet points. Some T34s died hard in 1941, but the great majority were simply out maneuvered by better trained and often more numerous Germans, or they were simply abandoned by their crews.

A.E.B

[ January 30, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

[Ex Bellator]

Oh God, not another T-34 Front Armor thread. I've taken the liberty of cutting and pasting your post into the STUGGED UP thread as that's where most of the discussion is taking place. Let's keep things together

[Nidan1]

Excellent post, and the research you have done seems to have provided most of the answers to your initial question.

You can probably sum it all up the way you aptly did, early T-34s were outmanuevered, out-classed and mostly abandoned by their inexperienced crews.

Any weapons system no matter how good it looks on paper, still has growing pains, and has to be operated by competent and brave human beings.

[Ex Bellator]

Yeah but were they killed frontally by Skoda's 37mm Guns at 580m? Please head over to the STUGGED UP thread for this and much other goodness. All of your points are in there and you can enjoy two forum heavyweights slugging it out over them for free...

[A.E.B]

Rex_Bellator wrote

Yeah but were they killed frontally by Skoda's 37mm Guns at 580m?

That would depend on how many shells were hitting that T34 and where.

There was a wargame released around 1980 called Tractics that was the equivalent of CM:BO & BB played on a sand table with HO scale models. That game quickly taught you that all AFVs had weak points. Remember that the T34s armour is (I think) 45mm thick at 45 degrees. Fire down on that tank and you reduce the effectiveness of the armour. Hit the driver's hatch, hull MG port, plate welds, turret ring, Cast turret shot trap or gun mantle weak points and you are not even facing 45mm of armour. So a L60 37mm AP round will bounce off the front of a T34, just not every time.

And remember that damage comes in many forms. T26s and BTs were reported to have fallen apart under sustained 20mm cannon fire. A tank can take mechanical damage even from a round that doesn't penetrate it.

And my final point is that in June 1941 the Russians had maybe 20,000 tanks. By December they had only a few hundred left. While huge numbers were abandoned without facing enemy action, someone or something killed many thousands of Russian tanks.

CM:BB is a game, not reality. How much fun would it be to be a German playing in 1941 if the forces that were realistically available to them were incapable of fighting T34s. T34s were routinely knocked out by inferior German AFVs using superior tactics and cooperation, but the game may choose to recognise this fact in the gun penetrations, as it is impossible to handicap a Russian human player to the extend that the 1941 Russian tanker actually was.

I am willing to be proven wrong, and I will know more once I have had more time to play the game.

Regards

A.E.B

[ January 30, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

[Aaron]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

There was a wargame released around 1980 called Tractics that was the equivalent of CM:BO & BB played on a sand table with HO scale models. That game quickly taught you that all AFVs had weak points.

Tractics. Your not going to win any friends with that one.

CM:BB is a game, not reality. How much fun would it be to be a German playing in 1941 if the forces that were realistically available to them were incapable of fighting T34s.

Yes, it would be more fun if it actually was a challenge to take out a T-34 with German vehicles. That's why I play CM. Even if it bothered me, I'd just play in 1943 instead.

Aaron

[MikeyD]

Ah, but which of your point on the T34 apply to the T34 in the game?

Mechanical reliability. CM doesn't model tanks blowing their head gaskets and such stuff. If the tank's running at the start of the game it won't break down during the game.

Poorly trained. Hmmm, Does CM model this? I believe early-war the Soviet command structure is modeled 1 level below the German (Russian Veteran = German Regular?) to represent Stalin's pre-war purges of the officer class. It may affect the tank commanders too.

Designed faults. The Initial production T34 does seem to be much easier to hole from the turret front than later versions. May reflect the thinner armor on the early gun mantlets.

Bad quality. I can't say if early T34s have more "Penetration at weak point" hits. I don't think so.

Short gun on initial versions. Ah, but the Germans also had thinner armor to contend with too.

2 man turret/no radio. CM models this and it make a HUGE difference in the game, especially if you buy your tanks by the platoon.

Penny packets, low fuel/ammo, outmaneuvered. This all depends on the scenario designer. My own one little scenario on the CD, a lone T34 arrives late because of transmission trouble, and has very little ammo. So, with a little ingenuity you can get pretty close to historical acuracy with the game.

[ January 30, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Guest Mike]

I've just played a game with a bunch of P3's with short 50's vs T34's and T26's - about 15 German tanks vs 20-25 Russians (roughly half each) set in December 1941.

I've lost 2 dead tanks and a couple with gun hits. He's lost everything.

I also had a battery of 75mm AT guns - the captured French ones, but they were only marginal help.

What was a great help was turret front hits at ranges of less than 250m and poor co-ordination, target aquisition and speed of return fire by the Russians - typically 2-3 T34's would come forward in a turn one at a time and get pounced on by 5-6 German tanks - at least one turret penetration would be scored on teh first tank, folowed soon after by a couple more...then the 2nd tank would arrive and it would be repeated.

By the time my opponent got a decent "wave" of tanks and infantry atacking I'd set up my AT guns and had all my tanks ready so he faced 12 or 13 guns, managed to get a few hits (I was lucky & they all ricocheted - probably 45mm's I guess) while my guys mowed him down (there weer more T26's by then).

Terrain obviously played a part - had we been fightign at 500m instead of 100-250 I think I'd have been in more trouble!!

[JasonC]

No, Mike, you wouldn't. And that is the problem. At 500m, your turret hits would have waxed them just as easily. Try it sometime, in a test. You are closing and using "hail fire" in an historically accurate manner, but in CMBB that is overkill and simply not necessary to kill T-34s. Which is what some of us are complaining about.

And no, the Czech 37mm KO at 580m are not weak point penetrations. The front turret of the T-34 is just modeled to royally suck. At close range, the Czech 37 outperforms the 75L24, but not that far away. Doesn't need to, though, to kill CMBB T-34s.

Of course T-26s were wrecked by 20mm fire. They only have about 15mm of armor, not very well sloped. The T-26 is a light tank. Unlike the T-34, with 3 times the thickness and good slope. Which weighs 3 times as much i.e. is a medium tank. It was regarded by the *Germans* as the best medium tank in the world at the time. Not by poltroons, by men like Guderian.

The problem is, as near as I have been able to determine, the *only* German guns the early T-34 turret front defeats are the 20mm, and the 7.92mm ATR. OK, the 75mm infantry gun, and the HE only recoilless rifles, and the worse French tanks (but not the Somua). Everything else will kill them from the front.

Czech 37s out to 500 yards. 28 PAK out to 500 yards. StuGs and Pz IVs to beyond 500 yards. The 50L42 out to more like 750 yards. Somuas and Pz Jgr Is, no problem. Not occasionally. Regularly.

Even ridiculously weak guns will kill the 1941 model without cast turret, which combines 95% armor quality with "45 curved" front turret armor. 37mm FLAK at point-blank. 37mm PAK - "army door knockers" to the Germans - at point blank. 75mm howitzers (not IGs, mind) with HE - at point blank.

The German after action reports of 1941 say they beat T-34s with 88s, 100mm guns, 105mm howitzers firing direct, weak point hits like the turret ring or shot trap deflections into the hull, hull flanks at close range, the engine compartment from behind, the turret rear, and at close enough range by hits on the gun mantlet - about 1/3rd of the turret front.

In CMBB, no such fuss. Take any German medium and duel hull down at 500, and you will annihilate them. This is not called accuracy. It is flat wrong, as a matter of history.

The cause of the problem is the way the "curved" turret front sloping is being handled internally. While a portion of hits should be "flat", on the more vunerable portions of the turret front, in CMBB essentially all front turret hits are treated as 30 degree slope or less.

Some people do not want to admit there is a problem. Because CM does no wrong, because otherwise they can't understand how the Germans romped in 1941, because they just think German panzers should be better, whatever. To me they are whistling Dixie.

Before CMBB came out but after seeing it previewed at the Chicago face to face, Rune mentioned to me that when it finally came out, there would be screams about the T-34, because it was worse than a Sherman 75. I was not phased by the comment, because I though the comment essentially accurate, that a T-34/76 and a Sherman 75 were comparable vehicles.

At first I thought he meant that Pz IVs and long StuGs would rule against them, and thought it proper and accurate, though I agreed their might be an ignorant reaction. He said no, IIIs.

I thought about it a second and agreed - thinking the better 50L60, reinforced IIIs of 1942-3, like the late J and especially the L. They'd be more accurate at range, with better MV, better ROF from a smaller gun and a 5 man crew, spot better, have better optics. Both might bounce shots at longer ranges. But occasionally, I remarked to Rune, the IIIs would get a particularly "flat" hit to "stick" on the turret and thus win.

But I did not suspect the truth, that he meant that Pz IIIs with short 50s would be superior to T-34s in 1941. Which is practically the case in CMBB today - with the H model, anyway. They don't need particularly flat hits. They just need to hit the turret front first, and not to be at extreme range.

The early T-34s suck. Not for the reasons it should - rariety, no radio, slow ROF from a 2-man turret. No, it sucks in armor terms. It has been neutered, I hope by honest mistake. By simply turning the whole turret front into 30 degree slope or less, as though the whole thing were mantlet or shot trap.

If you want to use T-34s, wait for the 1942 model with 75mm turret front. Until those are out, CMBB is just flat wrong about them.

[Stalin's Organ]

Good points - the gun armour of the early T34's WAS weak though - which is why it was uparmoured in 1942!!

IIRC there was a thread about this a while back discussing the relative area of armour weaknesses at different turret aspects - ie from front, side, etc. as well as another on just how "curved" armour is represented - both sort of concluded that CMBB is a bit inadequate - turret front weakness gets hit too often, and curved armour isn't really representative - it seems to have too great a proportion of hits at close to zero degrees.

The flat vertical plates protecting the gun recoil mechanism were known weak points for the Germans to aim at, but are probably best represented as weak points IMO - and only for gun hits when hit - not complete penetrations.

[SgtMuhammed]

A couple of very important points have been made on both sides of this discussion. For one the T34 was not a super tank. It was vulnerable and could be overcome by superior tactics. More importantly, however, it was PERCIEVED as a super tank by the people to whom it mattered, the ones fighting it.

Yes the turret had vulnerable spots on the turret face that were improved upon and could be exploited, but the fact that the tank inspired such fear and respect in the Germans shows that it was no easy thing to exploit these weaknesses. German accounts do not talk lightly of facing groups or even single T34s. Instead you find accounts of single 34s rampaging through groups of PIIIs and being taken out by lucky hits by 105 field guns. Not something you would expect if taking them out was a simple as many seem to believe.

CMBB is a game, but its main claim to fame is that it is more than that. If you want feel good playability then go play something else. By self proclamation this is a simulation. This means that we can expect to get historically accurate results for historical situations. For the most part this it true. A slugfest between Panthers and Sherman 75s will be one sided as it was historically. Artillery is slow to change targets making the preplanned barrage as important as it actually was, and a slew of others. Unfortunatly in the modeling of the 34 in 1941 CMBB falls short.

It is nearly impossible to simulate the results that gave the Germans such a respect for this tank. Remember that it was seriously proposed that the Germans should start manufacturing their own. This points to the effectivness of the machine regardless of its actual problems. Look at the tanks the Germans adopted from their couquests. If they had a policy of adopting anything that was availible why were there not battalions of Somua's or Char B's or Polish light tanks. Instead they adopted only designs that were as or more effective than their own, P35s and 38s for example. The simple fact is that CMBB turns the revolutionary 34 into a generic allied tank and it suffers for this conversion. Why is the small two man turret as easy to hit as the large turret of other tanks? Why is it so easy to get "flat" hits on the front of that turret? Why is it so easy to kill them with ahistorical situations and conditions? These are serious deficiences in the modelling of this vehicle and I hope they will be addressed.

CMBB represents a quantum leap above other so-called tactical simulations but it is not perfect. Acknowledging this fact can only make it better and doesn't detract from the quality of the game as it is.

James

[JasonC]

I agree with all of Sgt Goody's comments except one. He said almost in passing that getting the effectiveness of the T-34 exactly right - weaknesses and all, but with its strengths - is "almost impossible". I disagree. I think CMBB is remarkably close to doing so, and that there is only one substantial remaining area that clearly requires correction. That is how "curved" is dealt with as an armor "angle".

(There is another that may need tweaking, but I don't know enough to say it does for certain. About it I can only suggest that it be looked at by more competent people. This is the relative importance of shell diameter to armor thickness, resulting in shatter-like effects, to concentration of energy on a small point, resulting in "bore-through" like effects. In practice, this becomes a question of when e.g. 75L24 will work better, and when 37L48. There is theory on the matter, but also historical AARs, and they need to cross check each other).

The way "curved" is currently handled, whatever variance it introduces to armor performance is limited, and appears to be "bounded above" by performance akin to 30 degrees of slope. Which is quite a small amount, in terms of effect on penetration performance. A gun will penetrate about 85% of the thickness at 30 degrees, that it will penetrate against flat plate. Or, otherwise put, 30 degree sloped armor is effectively about 1/6th thicker than flat armor.

But 60 degrees of slope more than doubles the effective thickness. The change in the angle from 0 to 30 makes only a modest difference. Changes in angle between 30 and 60 make an enourmous difference. When the effect of "curved" is kept under 30 degrees almost all of the time, the result is a nearly deterministic, low "variance" behavior.

The plate usually functions as marginally thicker than it would flat. And most of the German guns actually used in 1941 will penetrate the T-34 turret front out to medium range, facing only such modest slope. While hits on the turret are not guareenteed, and those on the hull front do ricochet, it is easy for these guns to simply accumulate 2-3 hits and one of them will be to the turret. Curved being in effect "30 degrees", that hit will then go in.

If instead only about 1/3, perhaps has high as 1/2, of hits to the turret experienced 30 degree slope, and another 1/5 to 1/3 experienced something closer to 60 degree slope (leading to ricochets like the hull), with the remaining 1/3 or whatever experiencing intermediate angles around 45 degrees, then the overall effect is quite different.

It would still remain *possible* for turret front hits to go in at medium range. But from a near certainty if the turret it hit, this would become a chancy thing, even after securing a turret hit. If the gun is powerful enough to penetrate even at the middling angles (around 45 degrees), then the penetration chance becomes something on the order of 2/3 to 4/5. If it needs the particularly flat-looking 30 degree or less behavior, then its chance becomes 1/3 to 1/2.

All of these are after getting a turret hit. The good guns at close ranges would be looking at the following compound chances -

hull exposed - turret 1/3, KO 2/3, total 2/9

hull down - turret 2/3, KO 2/3, total 4/9

The poor guns, or at longer ranges, you see -

hull exposed - turret 1/3, KO 1/3, total 1/9

hull down - turret 2/3, KO 1/3, total 2/9.

Where previously all of them just needed 2-3 hits to score a penetration, you would now see that behavior only from the better guns, close, and hull down. For most cases, 3 hits would give only a 50-50 chance of a penetration, and the weaker guns or longer ranges with hull exposed, would need more like half a dozen hits.

Not every shot hits. Not every penetration kills, particularly with the lower caliber guns. If you have enough tanks delivering enough shots, you will still get one of them to prove effective. But even number dueling becomes risky - and particularly so at ranges long enough that only a particularly "flat" hit goes in. You are therefore strongly encouraged to close to the point were 40-50 degree angle its can still go in. Or to bring a gun - like an 88 - that can KO regardless, even through the hull. Or to close on the flanks, to expose the lower hull and so turn more hits into kills.

In short, the whole range of actual tactics the Germans used become necessary and sensible. Right now they are pointless and dangerous, because it is much safer and more effective to simply duel hull down at 500 yards, without a risky approach.

There is every indication, if you just look at the T-34 turret front and examine the size of its different areas, to think such variation in angle experienced by each hit is realistic. Hits "high and outside" face extreme angles and would tend to skid off, the turret no less than the hull. The difference is, nearly every hit on the hull does so, while only a portion of those on the turret do so.

Meanwhile another large group of hits would impact between the flatter center area around the gun mantlet, and the extreme angle sides. For these, the range and penetration power of the gun would be critical, with some succeeding and some failing. Last, a portion only would give an effect similar to that seen now for essentially all front turret hits - a modest angle only, nearly flat in armor effect (0.85 being close to 1.00).

And the reports of the Germans at the time are fully consistent with this picture. The tactics they adopted, likewise. Their concern over the T-34, the times it stopped them. The Russians still have every reason to uparmor the turret front, and to duel if possible at ranges where even the flatter hits cannot get in.

See, when the turret's effect thickness is set at one value, instead of varying over a wide range, it is not possible to put together both sets of facts. That the Germans tried to close and used the tactics they did, makes no sense if distant turret penetrations were entirely routine and to be expected on every hit. That the Russians stood off and uparmored the turret would not make sense if there were no vunerability at all until very close ranges.

What can explain both sets of historical facts, both sides' judgments and actions, is higher *variance* in the performance of the T-34 turret front. Deterministic 60 degrees and none of the Russian actions would make sense. Deterministic 30 degrees - as we have now, in practical effect - and none of the German actions make sense. But sometimes 30, sometimes 60, sometimes 40-50 in between - that explains both. And fits with what you'd expect just looking at the turret.

So, it seems to me that all CMBB needs to do to get it the rest of the way right, is to change the way "curved" is handled, to introduce larger angles and a wider dispersion of experienced angles, when a "curved" plate is hit. It is an easy thing to have gotten wrong - nobody said modeling curved armor plate effects was easy.

Historical tactics and accounts are the cross check on modeling, especially the most difficult parts of the modeling. That CMBB tactics against T-34s are entirely different from historical German tactics against T-34s shows that something is askew. And it is not hard to find the culprit, or to see what can be done about it.

I hope this is useful. Because seriously, this is not an easy thing to have gotten right, and CMBB is closer than anything else has been. I do not want to just carp or run CMBB down; on the contrary, I want to help improve it.

[MasterGoodale]

I would be very willing to play you and teach you the better aspects of the T-34 maggot!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[MikeyD]

As to T34 armor vulnerability, I'm reminded that most-all of the small turret T34-76s that came out of the Stalingrad plant until the fall of the town had extra applique armor on the hull front, and turret front and sides. They wouldn't have done that unless the T34 was seen as weak in those areas. I suspect the only reason why later T34-85s don't have applique armor was the heavier turret taxed the suspension.

[rune]

Don't put words in my mouth...i didn't mention the Pz III at all, i meant a Sherman was a better tank due to 1. crew, 2. gun, 3. amor, and 4. The Russians themselves liked the Sherman better.

Rune

[JasonC]

MikeyD - Stalingrad is in 1942. The Germans are sporting 50L60s, and starting to field long 75s. No one is arguing that the 1941 model turrets were adequate protection against the long 50 - they weren't. For that matter, higher variance means some succeed and others fail, not that practically none succeed - nor the present, that practically none fail.

As for Master Goodale, you are on, 1941 models only please. I have others in line and can't start until the middle of February, but any time after that, shoot me an email.

As for Rune, I apologize if I seem to have put words in your mouth, that was not my intention. I do recall our conversation, however. It was just at the end of the first Chicago face to face. You may well have brought up the point for the reason you say, but we did briefly talk about the IIIs, and I specifically remember the issue of getting rounds to "stick" on the T-34 turret front. I believe I had already mentioned other points (besides gun and armor) where the III was superior. At the time I understood the match up being discussed to be 1942-3 era, long 50 IIIs vs. T34s, but I don't think that was specified by either of us. It was not a long exchange, and I do not mean to read too much into it.

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by rune:

Don't put words in my mouth...i didn't mention the Pz III at all, i meant a Sherman was a better tank due to 1. crew, 2. gun, 3. amor, and 4. The Russians themselves liked the Sherman better.

Rune

Er...the Russians liking the Sherman better makes the Sherman better?? lol

A better finish, better transmission, better optics, more comfortable accomodation and mechanical reliability also feature.

I don't know that the gun was better - the ammunition maybe (pointy AP vs blunt), but the 75 was pretty much comparable to the 76.2, and the American 76 comparable to the 85.

[SgtMuhammed]

There was just that annoying tendency to burst into flames if someone said a harsh word at it.

Yeah the Serman was one of the few pieces of Western ordinace that the Russians actually liked. That and the trucks, the P-39, and the 14 million winter boots we made for them.

(Here's a bit of irony for you. U.S. troops suffered all through the winter of 44 for a lack of good winter boots while we were cranking out some of the best in the world for the Russians.)

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

MikeyD - Stalingrad is in 1942. The Germans are sporting 50L60s, and starting to field long 75s. No one is arguing that the 1941 model turrets were adequate protection against the long 50 - they weren't. For that matter, higher variance means some succeed and others fail, not that practically none succeed - nor the present, that practically none fail.

The STZ T34 41/42 (with 52mm mantlet/turret front) began production/development in October 1941. Extra 10-15mm armour and new shot trap-less mantlets began appearing during the late winter of 1941/42.

How many PIIIJs with KwK 39 5cm L/60 were around in october 41? That's right none.

[ February 01, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[JasonC]

MikeyD was talking about applique armor, turret front sides and rear, Bastables, not about the cast turrets. The 50L60 was out and about at the time he is discussing.

As for the cast turrets, they are a marginal improvement of 7mm, and had been developed before the invasion (June 41) for production reasons, so they weren't a counter to anything seen in German gun performance. They may have only reached the front in October, but they were being made well before that. The first German long 50 model IIIs were similarly produced at the very end of 1941, even though they did not show up at the front in any numbers until mid 1942.

In CMBB, the 52mm cast turrets still get penetrated by the German medium tank guns. The 72L24 needs to be close and gets partials around 300 yards, but the 50L42 reliably penetrates the improved turret front out beyond 500 yards (more like 650 actually). That is a significant improvement against the 75L24, though not "proof" against it, and not much of one against the CMBB short 50.

The next improvement of the turret was to eliminate the shot trap, in the winter of 41-42. The thicker, hexagonal turrets of the late D models were production rather than ad hoc (as applique armor was) 1942 counter to the 50L60.

[ February 01, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[A.E.B]

Hi all

While I realise that there are two other threads discussing the T34 vs low calibre German guns issue, I started this thread because the STUGGED UP AGAIN thread was originally a question about Stugs not using HC ammo on KVs. The thread was hijacked by the T34 crowd, so I have started a subject specific thread.

While I have great respect for JasonC, Andreas, Rexford and the other grogs who know far more about ballistics, armour hardness and penetration tables than I do, I believe that they are missing the point. Small calibre German shells - even 37mm - could and did KO T34s in 1941. :eek:

If anyone has the book by James Lucas call BATTLE GROUP!, published by Arms & Armour, turn to page 81. This page describes an incident during the seige of Cholm. The seige of Cholm was a 105 day encirclement battle that lasted from Dec41 to May42. An ad-hoc force called Battle Group Scherer held this strategic village up near Tula . They initially had no ATGs until a 37mm Pak was discovered that had been abandon due to damage. This 37mm Pak managed to kill two T34s and drive off another one with four shots from close range.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is Fourteen thousand words worth of pictures. I apologise that these were not linked to my first post, but Epson has decided not to release Windows XP drivers for my GT-9500 scanner, so I had to use a friend's scanner. I scanned these images of 1939-1941 model T34s and placed them into a online photo album. For those who wish to view them the link is http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view

If this link doesn't take you straight to the album, type aebutterfield in the Visit Album box on the left hand side of the webpage and then hit go.

I was planning to post several images directly into this post, but I couldn't get to work. :confused:

These pictures highlight the weak spots on the different models of T34. There are also pictures of KOed and destroyed T34s with closeups of what destroyed them.

Again, I am quite willing to be proven wrong. Till then enjoy!

Regards

A.E.B

[ February 02, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]

[JasonC]

There is nothing there.

On 37s KOing T-34s "at close range", the report needs to say what aspect of the tank, and preferably what plate, was hit. Nobody denies a 37mm could penetrate the side hull at point blank. The question is how far it could penetrate the turret front.

[SgtMuhammed]

The penetrations shown are clearly not the work of a 37mm. Compare the diameter of the hits to the size of the 34's cannon as a rough reference.

Even if they were they still do not show the main point of contention. The hits are from behind or from side turret with very little slope (around 30 degrees). None of these show the front turret being penetrated. What they do show is how small the aspect ratio of the turret was and how much of an angle incoming rounds would have had to deal with if they didn't strike clean hits to the flat portion of the front face.

The discussion is not if the 37 could kill the 34 as it clearly could under the right conditions. The point of contention is whether or not it is ahistorically easy to kill them from the front with 1941 German AT assets.

[JasonC]

OK, I saw the pictures this time - my bad. They show rear hull hits on engine compartments that are said to have resulted in immobilizations. Not in contention. They show what long 75 could do in 1943, and an unspecified brew up by a large caliber hit. Not in contention. They talk about grenade bundles on the rear deck. Who cares?

There are only two sets that might be relevant, one about the front hull, the other about the turret front and side.

The front hull shows a dead tank, looks burnt out to me but hard to say for sure, with the driver's hatch detached. It says the tank was KOed by a hit on the driver's hatch. But the photo does not remotely prove this to have been the case.

It is just as likely whatever caused a fire cooked off the ammo, and the explosion displaced the driver's hatch. There is no visible pock-mark on the driver's hatch, it is just detached.

However that may be, it is perfectly possible the report is accurate. The shell that did it is nowhere specified, and could have been a 75L24 (which would be a weak point effect, and matter for the discussion), or a 105mm HE, or a 50L60 PAK, or an 88, or...

The other interesting one is the 1940 model with several holes in the side of the turret. The caption says it was fired on at a German firing range, with weapons up to 50mm caliber. Doesn't specify 50L42 rather than 50mm PAK. Doesn't say 37mm.

The hits are to the swept-angle front-side of the turret. If you look at the close up, the spall circles around the holes are pretty well circular, with perhaps a slight elongation lower left to upper right. In other words, pretty "flat" hits. It does not say the shots were fired from directly ahead of the tank and went in despite a glancing angle.

There is no sign of such a glancing angle in the pock-marks, with the possible exception of the one farthest to the upper right. And that one looks like it has some lower left to upper right "gouge", but certainly not a gouge from the direction in front of the tank back toward the rear.

Overall, I'd say they show that the side of the turret could be penetrated by some weapon, 50mm caliber or less, when fired from the front side of the tank, perhaps 60 degrees away from straight ahead, so as to strike the swept turret face at close to a vertical angle.

It is perfectly believable that 50L42 could do this, let along 50L60. And I would not even be surprised if 37mm PAK could do this, at close enough range (at 100m, it is rated to penetrate 51mm flat in CM). The holes look small enough to me - particularly the upper right one and the pock on the vision port - that they might be 37mm. But the caption of the larger picture says "weapons up to 50mm", and specify this was on a firing range, not in battle.

It is striking how good the slope of the turret is from straight ahead, however, unless you hit square on the mantlet. You can also see multiple "dings" in the upper front hull in the larger picture, and of course the small pock marks on the turret, all of which were hits that did not get in - on a firing range. No "busted weld seams" are in evidence, either.

My Scottish verdict - not proven. Fun pictures though, thanks for providing them.

[ February 02, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[A.E.B]

JasonC wrote

OK, I saw the pictures this time - my bad. They show rear hull hits on engine compartments that are said to have resulted in immobilizations. Not in contention. They show what long 75 could do in 1943, and an unspecified brew up by a large caliber hit. Not in contention. They talk about grenade bundles on the rear deck. Who cares?

JasonC. With respect the pictures I provided were intended to support my first post in this thread by demonstrating how T34s were KOed in 1941, not just as part of the cast turret effectiveness debate. The information in the captions is basically the information that was provided with the pictures, hence the lack of specifics.

Agreed, there are only two pictures that relate to your issue regarding the mis-modeling of the deflection effectiveness of the 1940 model T34 cast turret. The only information that I have regarding that photo is that it was a 1940 model T34 used as a ordinance test subject on a German firing range and that it was engaged by rounds up to 50mm. No mention of range or angle of fire, though the scuff mark on the side turret vision port suggests at least one front on hit - though this could have occurred on the battlefield!

However....

When considering the deflective capability of curved or slopped armour, you must also compare the stickiness of that armour. WWII AFV armour was face-hardened, meaning that a hard but brittle outer layer of steel covered a softer but flexible core. The small pocks marks often see on WWII tanks are made by shells that have broken off part of the hard outer facing but which failed to reach the inner core. The large crater holes are made by shells that have reached the inner core and have displaced some of the steel to form the raised crater rim.

I have never seen a real 1940 model T34 - I don't know if any still exist. I have see a T55 with a round cast turret. That turret was a rough as a pineapple! I don't know how good Russian casting techniques were in 1940, but a rough surface on armour tends to catch the point of an AP round, making more likely to penetrate through to the softer core steel.

Also, the turret of a 1940 model T34 is shaped like a narrow horseshoe, with the gun at the curved end and the turret rear being the flat. If you fire at such a turret from directly front on you not only have to hit a small target area, but any shell that misses the gun mantel will hit the heavily curved and sloped turret side. Even with sticky armour, most shells will deflect away. I have a picture of a T34B with a scuff along the entire turret side made by an 88mm AP that demonstrates this (it wasn't so lucky when the second round arrived, however). So this sort of proves part of JasonC's point! :eek:

However, turn that turret 15 degrees right or left to the the incoming shell and the turret's elongated shape starts to work against it by presenting the attacker with a much larger target. It also reduces the effective curvature of the armour. In such cases the income shell will gain more purchase on the armour and will have a greater chance of penetrating it. Turn the turret to 30 degrees and the effect is more pronounced.

Again I cannot claim full knowledge here, as I don't have an actual 1940 model T34 to fire shells at! Yet again I am willing to be proven wrong.

Regards

A.E.B

[ February 02, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: A.E.B ]